Comments Please on AAPHP Petitions to FDA

[Bill Godshall]

I noticed that LTnull and natura are new members of this forum. I suggest they (and anyone else who is considering posting similar statements) do some reading on this issue before posting their naive opinions.

The AAPHP and I have spent lots of time and energy advocating to keep e-cigarettes legally accessible and affordable.

Perhaps those who oppose FDA reclassifying e-cigarettes as tobacco products prefer that FDA succeed in banning the products, but they should at least reveal why they want e-cigarettes to be banned instead of remain legal.

 

[THeGAMe]

Sorry. I still cant agree to classify them as a tobacco product.

It isnt. Its new tech, and must be given its own classification. Even more so since you can use a ecig without nic. Much like the healthcare thing here in the US, it is stupid, and dangerous to our civil rights, to pass something now for the sake of getting something passed as opposed to doing it right the first time. Any other opinion, IMO, is very foolish and trusting of an entity not worthy of trust.

IMO, these petitions are a waste of time. The gov isnt listening. If they were they would know to .... out of our private lives and the choices we make. These people see an addict as a cash cow. Let that burn in...

Vote in November.

We need to clean house and send a message that we run this country, not them. Whats standing in the way is policy, not enlightenment.

 

[natura]

Additional taxation on e-cigs in one form or another seems inevitable if/when they gain recognized legitimacy. But note that the petition repeatedly emphasizes moving toward treatment of e-cigs as reduced harm tobacco products. Recognition of this aspect of tobacco control will pave the way for lower taxation than that which applies to cigarettes. Once reduced harm is recognized as a goal, it will be apparent that taxation should be lower for lower harm products to encourage switching.

Also note that if taxation were the main thing motivating the FDA in regard to e-cigs they'd have classified them as tobacco products long ago, and there's nothing any of us could do to stop that. It is the least harmful (to vapers) possible outcome at the moment.

Couldn't they also require prescriptions?

 

[Mister]

I read this and see no reason to support this group. They are NOT out to help us in my opinion.
...
I wasn't aware they had classified it as a drug device?
No go on both petitions for me. Do not care they misrepresented something a year ago! They made an error? If they do it again- then it's something to talk about.

I strongly disagree! This group's work is the best hope that vapers have to avoid e-cigs becoming outright banned.

It is important to understand that at the moment there are exactly two choices for the FDA:
1) E-cigs are medical devices
2) E-cigs are tobacco products

There is no choice 3. Leaving e-cigs unregulated but able to deliver nicotine would require new legislation and that's just not going to happen, ever. (Because nicotine is addictive if for no other reason.)

Choice 1 spells doom for e-cigs for years. And it IS the current FDA position. Choice 2 isn't a bad thing - it puts e-cigs on the same footing as cigarettes, i.e. without a requirement to absolutely (and slowly and expensively!) prove that they do no harm.

The first AAPHP petition may result in the FDA reconsidering their current attitude that choice 1 is the only choice. We (vapers) badly need this! If it doesn't happen, then choice 1 (medical devices) WILL happen, and there won't be any e-cigs on the market for a long time. And when in a few years they do meet the requirements for medical devices they are likely to be watered down and a lot more expensive than any taxation as tobacco products.

 

[natura]

I strongly disagree! This group's work is the best hope that vapers have to avoid e-cigs becoming outright banned.

It is important to understand that at the moment there are exactly two choices for the FDA:
1) E-cigs are medical devices
2) E-cigs are tobacco products

There is no choice 3. Leaving e-cigs unregulated but able to deliver nicotine would require new legislation and that's just not going to happen in the near future if ever.

Choice 1 spells doom for e-cigs for years. Choice 2 isn't a very bad thing - it puts e-cigs on the same footing as cigarettes, i.e. without a requirement to absolutely (and slowly and expensively!) prove that they do no harm.

The first AAPHP petition may result in the FDA reconsidering their current attitude that choice 1 is the only choice. We (vapers) need this!

I can't support something because the perception is- It is the lesser of two evils. I am an Independent

 

[maxx]

I noticed that LTnull and natura are new members of this forum. I suggest they (and anyone else who is considering posting similar statements) do some reading on this issue before posting their naive opinions.

Excuse me, buddy....but the banner at the top invites discussion. Some of us simply don't agree with what you think is a wonderful petition. If you want a rubber-stamp, then use a blog, not a forum.

 

[vapordraggin101]

I don't agree with classifying them as tobacco products either, so unfortunately I cannot sign you first petition. The second one, I have no problems with.

My feelings exactly, we can buy the units without nic so I don't feel they can control the unit at all, maybe the liquid with nic but thats it.....

BONGS are a drug delivery device and they have not been able to stop the sale of them. JMO

I will move to Belize and denouce my citizenship if they ban these, not just because of the ban but the gov. itself, they want people dieing (health care $$$$$$) and to control the population plus the $$$$$$$.... there idiots...you can't fix stupid....

 

[5cardstud]

They're not asking you to sign the petition they're asking you to comment. I feel the same way as you. I don't want it defined as a tabacco product as there isn't on piece of my device that is made from any part of the tabacco plant. The liquid that I use in this device has among other ingredients an ingredient derived from the tabacco plant but that ingredient is already a lawful substance that is being consumed in other products and is regulated already.

 

[natura]

Thank You Maxx.
Some see the world with limited possibilities.
Thank goodness- I'm not one of them.

Sorry- I have only been here a short time. Perhaps, I shouldn't care?
I shouldn't share my perspective? My opinions are not valid? OK believe what you will. I won't get involved in any of this because I am new and listen to you?

Those are the only two choices???????????

 

[5cardstud]

I noticed that LTnull and natura are new members of this forum. I suggest they (and anyone else who is considering posting similar statements) do some reading on this issue before posting their naive opinions.

The AAPHP and I have spent lots of time and energy advocating to keep e-cigarettes legally accessible and affordable.

Perhaps those who oppose FDA reclassifying e-cigarettes as tobacco products prefer that FDA succeed in banning the products, but they should at least reveal why they want e-cigarettes to be banned instead of remain legal.

Your statement reminds me of an innocent man being told by his attorny to plead guilty to a lessor charge just to get it over with.

 

[Mister]

I can't support something because the perception is- It is the lesser of two evils. I am an Independent

I do not agree that the classification of e-cigs as tobacco products is an evil. It doesn't even automatically imply special taxation. It doesn't say that smoking bans apply to e-cigs. It just says they're in the same category as cigarettes, snus, snuff, etc. And being in that category will protect them from being banned on grounds of having unproven safety or being addictive.

Still, given that you think that for some reason it is an evil, please understand that if it does not happen the greater evil will certainly happen (it already has but is waiting on legal procedings before being aggressively enforced) and e-cigs will effectively be banned.

 

[natura]

From My first post-
"I wasn't aware they had classified it as a drug device?

No one has answered this question. I get a host of assumptions. I do not make decisions on assumptions in signing my name to a public petition. Words can make or break petitions and what ramifications are plausible. They lumped these petitions together. That is a major no no in my book. Each should stand alone! Assumptions- LOOK we can't be wrong.. look at all these people who signed our petition.

E-Cigs could be taxed as high as cigs or cigars. QUICK TOO! How many people tried e-cigs because it was less money and ended up quitting a bad habit. These are hard cold KNOWN things here. I will not deal in assumptions, after assumption to make a decision to sign a petition that has many areas of wording that seem suspect to me.

But hey everyone has the right to do as they see fit. IMHO
My last words on subject UNLESS someone wants to reply to my words. (giving benefit of doubt that you want me to shut up and I will no problem-just do not address me or anything I have said..and I will fade away)

 

[Doberz]

So if e-cigs were classified as tobacco products or medical devices, what exactly would happen to our vendors? I would hate to see big corporations take over what our vendors have done so far.

 

[5cardstud]

Well here's mine.
I have smoked cigarettes for over 40 yrs. and have finally found a way to successfully stop by using the electronic cigarette. Now the FDA either wants to classify it as a drug and ban it or classify it as a tabacco product and tax it. Why is it so important to penalize the citizen for a device that succeeds in getting people away from cigarettes to become healthier. Why are cigarettes and cigars so important to the American Government? The only fair minded answer is revenue. When revenue is more important than health that is a sad day in our countries history. Please I beseach you to keep your cigarettes and our personal vaporizers apart as cigarettes do not produce vapor and my personal vaporizer dosen't produce smoke. Lastly your cigarette is a killer and my personal vaporizer is a life saver. Thank you

 

[5cardstud]

I do not agree that the classification of e-cigs as tobacco products is an evil. It doesn't even automatically imply special taxation. It doesn't say that smoking bans apply to e-cigs. It just says they're in the same category as cigarettes, snus, snuff, etc. And being in that category will protect them from being banned on grounds of having unproven safety or being addictive.

Still, given that you think that for some reason it is an evil, please understand that if it does not happen the greater evil will certainly happen (it already has but is waiting on legal procedings before being aggressively enforced) and e-cigs will effectively be banned.

If what you say Mister is true then instead of whoever put that message in our logon page should have explained that a little bit instead of just saying here is the site to comment so comment.

 

[THeGAMe]

5card..

Think cash cow, and no one gives a rats ... bout your addiction and suffering as long as they dont get a tax hike. You are battling years of social programming, and a total lack of respect for your fellow mans rights.

The good news is that the state and fed gov are over stepping their authority everywhere, and people are tired of it. There is a real chance of real change coming in November. Dont waste it.

Crush the two party system.

 

[thewomenfolk]

Do you really think vapers want to be identified with tobacco and smoking again? No thanks.

Do you not recognize the enemy when you see it?



-----

 

[EasyPuffer]

My only concern is that they are banning all tobacco products that are flavored, or otherwise would attract children/new-smokers. For example clove cigarettes are illegal here in VA (and the rest of the USA if I'm right).

E-cigs, at least how I enjoy them, are neat gadgets, and are in delicious flavors.

If they are classified as a tobacco product, wouldn't they be immediately banned under the same logic/laws?

If it has to be classified as SOMETHING, I would think that an over-the-counter drug may be the best definition. Aren't there other over the counter meds that are addicting?

 

[Wolf]

That first petition is giving away the store IMO. It seems to be based on the assumption (a huge one) that people are moving to vapor for health reasons only. Classify as tobacco products....and we will pay the same as smokes...AND....they will also be banned in public just like cigs. I'm sorry...but not only would I not sign that first petition, I would be more inclined to sign a petition that directly countered it. It's a sell-out to the FDA.

Right with you maxx. There is no tobacco in an electronic cigarette (nicotine vaporizer). They is metal and electronics and while there may be nicotine in the liquid that becomes vapor, nicotine doesn't have to be in the liquid or come from tobacco. Nicotine is naturally occurring in several foods just like caffeine is. To classify these devices a a tobacco product seems a bit like classifying a coffee pot as a coffee bean product. Just my $.02.

ETA: Just thought I would remind y'all that Nicotine is not as addicting as the FDA would have you believe. That's one of the reasons the gum, patches and Chantix only works for a small amount of people. For most of us who vape, the oral fixation with the inhalation of vapor is what helps us to quit smoking. Still just my $.02

 

[Nikhil]

It is important to understand that at the moment there are exactly two choices for the FDA:
1) E-cigs are medical devices
2) E-cigs are tobacco products

There is no choice 3. Leaving e-cigs unregulated but able to deliver nicotine would require new legislation and that's just not going to happen, ever. (Because nicotine is addictive if for no other reason.)

Choice 1 spells doom for e-cigs for years. And it IS the current FDA position. Choice 2 isn't a bad thing - it puts e-cigs on the same footing as cigarettes, i.e. without a requirement to absolutely (and slowly and expensively!) prove that they do no harm.

The first AAPHP petition may result in the FDA reconsidering their current attitude that choice 1 is the only choice. We (vapers) badly need this! If it doesn't happen, then choice 1 (medical devices) WILL happen, and there won't be any e-cigs on the market for a long time. And when in a few years they do meet the requirements for medical devices they are likely to be watered down and a lot more expensive than any taxation as tobacco products.

I can't support something because the perception is- It is the lesser of two evils. I am an Independent

Your non-vote will help the FDA turn them into medical devices. Thanks!